I'll start with the first one on the terms “older” and “mature” workers. I agree. I don't like the term, “older workers”. We've had discussions among ourselves, but it was the term that stuck. The reason we put it as “55-plus” when we're presenting it, is that we sometimes want to dig down a little deeper into the data. As you go past 65, 70, the population itself gets a little smaller. It gets a little harder to disaggregate the data, so we tend to group it up to 55-plus. It is possible to look at it beyond 55. You can disaggregate it. It's just that when you try to break it down you might have to look at industry and occupation, and see whether you have enough data to provide statistics. It is possible to break it down further. We can do it in special studies. We just tend to aggregate it up for dissemination purposes.
There was a comment—and this referred to an earlier question—about focusing a little more on older workers and shifts. With the labour force survey, we tend to ask all respondents. But at age 70, if they indicate that they're not working, for the purposes of response burden—we go back to them six times—we don't re-ask the questions. We're coming up to a redesign point in 2015-16 where we look at the survey in general, and one part we look at is the content. So it is something we're looking at. We recognize with the demographic shift and the growth in older workers, particularly females, that it might be something we want to focus on a little bit more in considering whether to raise the age limit. It's just that we have to look at the proportions that we're dealing with. If we're still dealing with about 2% of the population, when you disaggregate it, we might not have enough.
All that to say, it is definitely on our radar and it is something we're looking at in our redesign. It is something you can work with now. We just aggregate it that way for dissemination purposes.